theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An Article
Apr 02, 2011 08:56 PM
by jdmsoares
Dear Sufilight, friends,
Our website www.TheosophyOnline.com <http://www.theosophyonline.com/>
has a list of authors as diverse as:
HPB, William Judge, Damodar Mavalankar, Mohini Chatterjee, Alice
Cleather, B. P. Wadia, Alexander Wilder, Boris de Zirkoff, Robert
Crosbie, John Garrigues, Alan Hughes, Dara Eklund, Dallas TenBroeck,
Ianthe H. Hoskins, Leon Tolstoi, Immanuel Kant, Baron Holbach, Benjamin
Franklin, Kahlil Gibran, Luis E. Valcárcel, Niall Ferguson, Shimon
Perez, Sieglinde Plocki, Caren M. Elin, Catherine Meyes, Erich Fromm,
Hierocles of Alexandria, Justin Gillis, Kali Prasanna Mukeji, Katherine
Hillard, Al Gore, Sir Edward Dyer, and many more.
I think this non-dogmatic diversity of authors can hardly be regarded
sectarian.
As to the Declaration of ULT, I think the following text offers a
broader perspective of their meaning.
Best regards, Joaquim
0000000000000000000000000000000000
A Non-Reactive Declaration of Independence
The United Lodge and the Theosophical Movement
An Anonymous Associate of the U.L.T.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The text below was received from
an experienced Associate of the ULT
in the United States of America â?? ,
but there is no clue as to its authorship.
That is not an important question, though,
as the ULT makes it a point that, as we
look for truth, the ideas themselves and
not the personalities who express them,
should be in the focus.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The United Lodge of Theosophists ( U.L.T.) presents itself not as an
organisation, but as an organism, a living body of students, devoted to
the dissemination by study and otherwise of the original teachings of
Theosophy as recorded in the writings of the Founders of the modern
Theosophical Movement, H.P.B. and William Q. Judge. The only "official"
document of the U.L.T. is a brave Declaration of principles, and one of
these principles "holds that the unassailable basis for union among
Theosophists, wherever and however situated, is 'similarity of aim,
purpose and teaching,' and therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws
nor Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that basis".
Although the above words sound simple and clear, it still may be
difficult to understand their real meaning and thereby missing the
unique character, mission and purpose of U.L.T. Unaquainted with the
history of the Theosophical Movement one may think that U.L.T. is just
another theosophical group, especially when from a purely historical and
chronological view U.L.T. only originated in 1909, and thus may be
considered as only one of the many off-shoots of the original
Theosophical Society, founded in 1875. In order to comprehend U.L.T. and
its declaration it is therefore helpful to point out the difference
between the Theosophical Movement as a whole and any theosophical
organisation in particular. W.Q. Judge gives some interesting thoughts
on this important subject:
"There is a very great difference between the Theosophical Movement and
any Theosophical Society. The Movement is moral, ethical, spiritual,
universal, invisible save in effect, and continuous. A Society formed
for theosophical work is a visible organization, an effect, a machine
for conserving energy and putting it to use; it is not nor can it be
universal, nor is it continuous. Organized Theosophical bodies are made
by men for their better cooperation, but, being mere outer shells, they
must change from time to time as human defects come out, as the times
change, and as the great underlying movement compels such alterations.
The Theosophical Movement being continuous, it is to be found in all
times and in all nations. Wherever thought has struggled to be free,
wherever spiritual ideas, as opposed to forms and dogmatisms, have been
promulgated, there the great movement is to be discerned... One can
therefore see that to worship an organization... is to fall down before
Form." (from the text "The Theosophical Movement", in "The
Path", August, 1895)
H.P. Blavatsky herself once declared, in reply to those who tried to
commit her to the Theosophical Society and its headquarters in Adyar:
"It is pure nonsense to say 'H.P.B... is loyal to the the Theosophical
Society and to Adyar' (!?) H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical
CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the
whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott she is
the chief Founder and Builder of the Society which was and is meant to
represent that CAUSE... Therefore the degree of her sympathies with the
'Theosophical Society and Adyar' depends upon the degree of the loyalty
of that Society to the CAUSE. Let it break away from the original lines
and show disloyalty in its policy to the CAUSE and the original
programme of the Society, and H.P.B. calling the T.S. disloyal will
shake it off like dust from her feet. And what does 'loyalty to Adyar'
mean, in the name of all wonders? What is Adyar, apart from that
CAUSE?... Why not loyal to the compound or the bath-room of Adyar?"
(from "A Puzzle from Adyar", Theosophical Articles I, p. 219, The
Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, 1981)
These statements are self-explanatory: while any theosophical
organisation has a historical beginning and end - due to the fact that
it is an organisation - the Theosophical Movement is meta-historical or
trans-historical in the sense that it is a Movement of perennial Ideas
and eternal Ideals and not of perishable forms, personalities and
man-made structures through which the Movement may be embodied and
exemplified. It also stands to reason that any organisation or group can
only be called an expression in time and space of the timeless and
spaceless Theosophical Movement when it tries to live up to these Ideas
and Ideals. Any group may call itself theosophical, but this will remain
only a nominal or formal description without content if such a group is
not rooted metaphysically and ethically in the Theosophical Movement.
Any theosophical group may have its historical roots within the
Movement, but that in itself is not enough reason to call it
theosophical. If that were true, being born in a family of theosophists
would be sufficient reason for calling oneself a theosophist!
The U.L.T., founded in 1909 in Los Angeles, California, was formed under
the inspiration and guidance of Robert Crosbie and some of his fellow
students. Mr. Crosbie was a Theosophist residing in Boston during the
time of William Q. Judge. He worked very closely with Judge, enjoying
his confidence. When, after Judge's death, the members most active at
the New York headquarters raised Mrs. Tingley to the position of
Judge's succesor, Mr. Crosbie gave her his loyalty and support. About
1900 he went to Point Loma to assist the work. However, in the course of
a few years he realized that nothing constructive was to be accomplished
by remaining at Point Loma, and that the original teachings and objects
of the Movement were being diluted and changed by the methods and
program instituted by Mrs Tingley's authoritarian leadership. He left -
some would say he was expelled from - the T.S. Point Loma in 1904 and
came to Los Angeles . He gradually began to gather around him a few
students to undertake once more the task of promulgating Theosophy as
originally intented and presented by the Founders of the Movement. In
1909 the U.LT . was formed to carry out the purposes in view.
The U.L.T. is an integral part of the Theosophical Movement, not because
- as some may think - it originated historically as a secession from the
T.S. Point Loma, but because its associates are bound together by the
tie of common aim, purpose and teaching, in the cause of Theosophy.
U.L.T. is not so much historically linked with the Movement, and
certainly not with any theosophical organisation, but is spiritually
rooted in the Movement, because its sole raison d'être is to serve
mankind through the study and application of the original philosophy of
Theosophy. The link between U.L.T. and the universal Theosophical
Movement lies solely in the Theosophical Message and its exemplification
in practice, through a truer realization of the SELF; a profounder
conviction of Universal Brotherhood.
The concept of U.L.T. as a vehicle for Theosophical work derives mainly
from the experience and insight of Robert Crosbie, who throughout a long
association with the original Theosophical Society, was witness to the
schisms and divisions caused in the movement by organizational claims,
controversy over "authority", and the competition of personal leaders
and self-appointed successors to H.P.B.. Looking superficially at the
origin of U.L.T. one is likely to conclude that U.L.T. is nothing more
than an historical reaction against the personality cult and the
religious, but untheosophical concept of succesorship that was polluting
the Movement. Although certain tragic events within the different
theosophical societies triggered U.L.T. into existence, this does not
explain its real being, which lies not in the history, but in the
meta-historical Cause of the Theosophical Movement, i.e its Ideas and
Ideals. Therefore the Declaration of U.L.T. cannot be understood as a
partly historical, partly psychological reaction by Mr. Crosbie against
the leadership of Mrs. Tingley or against any other power struggle
within the then existing Theosophical Societies. If that were true, it
would have made more sense for Mr. Crosbie to have formed another T.S. -
with himself as appointed President or Leader - together with some other
people leaving the Point Loma community as well, like for instance Mr.
Hargrove, whom indeed followed that course. But Robert Crosbie didn't,
and that is something to consider and ponder about, no matter how one
perceives or interprets the course of historical events. He started
something entirely new and unique within the history of the Movement;
instead of establishing another T.S. with people claiming authority and
thereby creating another split within the Movement, Mr. Crosbie launched
an impersonal platform, a forum for everyone interested in the study and
application of Theosophy. In the words of Mr. Crosbie himself:
" `U.L.T.' and its Declaration will be compared by many with the
claims made by the various societies and their exponents. Each of these
makes the claim that he or it is alone right. What are our claims? - it
will be asked. We make none: we point to the Message, the Messengers,
and their enunciation of the Work - and carry on the latter in
accordance; we have no 'revelation' to offer, we only hand on that which
was known before. The position is unique and unaissailable in that it
makes no claim to any other authority than the Message and the
Messengers... The Authority which we recognize is not what men term
authority, which comes from outside and which demands obedience, but an
internal recognition of the value of that which flows through any given
point, focus or individual. This is the authority of one's
Self-discrimination, intuition, the highest intellection. If we follow
what we recognize in that way, and still find it good, we naturally keep
our faces in that direction. This means no slavish following of any
person - a distinction which some are unable to grasp... The 'U.L.T.'
Declaration should turn the attention of every open-minded Theosophist
from forms to principles. It provides a real basis for study and work.
Its reasonableness should awaken many to get busy on themselves. The
door is open to all, but we cannot help those who will neither listen
nor think. I was amused at the statement published in the Besant
periodical that U.L.T. is a 'secession from Point Loma'. I wonder how
they made the deduction? As it is largely composed of Theosophists from
different organizations, it might be better called a 'secession' from
them all! The fact that 'U.L.T.' does not profess attachment to any
organization, and that it has no organization of its own, does not
appear to have registered with those who would pigeon-hole us as well as
themselves... We must be watchfull to correct the impression wherever it
exists that 'U.L.T.' is a secession or succesion, or anything but an
Association to study and apply Theosophy pure and simple." (From the
book "The Friendly Philosopher", by R. Crosbie, Theosophy
Company, Los Angeles, p. 372-373 and 388.)
To sum up: U.L.T. cannot be explained (away) as a mere psychological
historical reaction, but must be understood as a noetic or spiritual
meta-historical action, taken by its founder, who recognized that
Theosophy in itself, regardless of organizations or personal authority,
offers the basis for real Unity amongst theosophists. U.L.T. is
therefore not an organization - although even some of its associates may
misinterpret it as such- but an organism which stands for certain
principles and ideas; those who associate themselves with these
principles and ideas are attracted and bound by those principles and
ideas only - not by their fellow students who do likewise or those
fellow-men who refrain or whom cease to consider themselves to be bound.
THE DECLARATION, together with its signed affirmation by the Associates,
is a wide departure from anything that exists as an organization.
What are our claims?. We make none: we point to the Message, the
Messengers, and their enunciation of the Work - The position is unique
and unaissailable in that it makes no claim to any other authority than
the Message and the Messengers...and points to where one might look for
the impersonal Truth, impersonal because all inclusive.
We must be watchfull to correct the impression wherever it exists that
"U.L.T." is a secession or succesion, or anything but an Association to
study and apply Theosophy pure and simple.' (From "The Friendly
Philosopher", p. 372-373 and 388)
Casting the Umbrella of the Modern Theosophical Movement over all
sincere students regardless of their affiliation.
"The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each
and all."
This statement at the end of the Declaration is considered by serious
students as not just an idea, but rather as an Ideal that is realized
through effort and Self growth.
00000000000000000000
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Joaquim and friends
>
> My views are:
>
>
> Thanks for showing me the ULT Declaration
>
> I will ask two questions at first:
> Why did the ULT's abandon the Original Constitution of the TS as
given in 1875-1891?
> What was the Constitution given in 1895 when W. Q. Judge lived?
>
> I will now throw a few comments to the content of the ULT declaration.
I write these words in a calm and wellmeant manner, so to seek to be of
service to us all and even to humanity.
>
> And I will say from the beginning, that this ULT Declaration seem to
me to be aiming at promoting secterian behaviour - and that it is not in
accordance with the original aim of the non-secterian activity which was
sought by Blavatsky and Olcott and even W. Q. Judge in the beginning of
the TS existence, when it was formulated in 1875. But these are my
views.
>
> Let me seek to explain this further...
>
>
> *** 1 ***
> The declaration of ULT says:
> "Declaration The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the
cause of Theosophy, without
> professing attachment to any Theosophical organization."..."It is
loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical movement, but does not
concern itself with dissensions or differences of individual opinion."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> If it is so, how can it then avoid a secterian behaviour all in all?
>
> The Original Constitution and Rules of the TS given in 1875-1891
clearly said that it was a non-secterian Society. In the 1891
Constitution of the TS it was stated that: "The Theosophical Society is
absolutely unsectarian". - Therefore one found all kinds of religious
memberships at the beginning of the TS existence - existing there on
equal footing. This I find that the ULT would like to change.
>
> When the members should be devoted to Theosophy from the very
beginning, a secterian behaviour is promoted form the very start of
membership. This is how I read the words.
>
> In the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 one were very much concerned
with "differences of individual opinion".
> And in the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 one aimed at comparative
studying of Eastern literatutre among the objects. Now ULT want to
delete this aim and object of the original TS while they claim to be
loyal to the original TS cause? Or am I reading it in a wrong manner?
>
>
>
>
> *** 2 ***
> The declaration of ULT says:
> "The true
> Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each and
> all."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> Now this should get rid of the problem with being secterian within the
ULT.
> But as I have shown in the previous paragraph, it seem difficult when
one promotes a secterian point of view from the beginning.
>
> Why have the ULT deleted the Original Constitution and Rules of the TS
given in 1875-1891?
> This is the question which aught to be asked.
> Why not keep to the original idea which safeguards against secterian
behaviour - especially by clearly stating so in the Article XIII of the
1891 TS Constitution.
>
> CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 1891
> http://www.global-theosophy.net/ts_constitution_rules.php
>
> Preamble of the T.S. Dated October 30, 1875
>
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm#Preamble%20of%20\
the%20T.S.
>
> ["ORIGINAL PROGRAMME" MANUSCRIPT] by co-founder Blavatsky, 1886
> (Especially the first few pages, where Blavatsky herself explain the
original aims!)
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm
>
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> Furthermore, I do not find that the ULT Declaration clearly state
anything about how it relates to politics as done in the original
Constitution of the TS in 1875-1891. And I wonder why?
>
> So if you at ULT want to follow the co-founder H. P. Blavatsky you
would do well in listening to what she wrote in the last link in the
above - and - keep that in mind in your ULT Declaration - instead of
forwarding a secterian behaviour. Well as I see it. - A view, which I
personally find is showing a disfavour of the aim mentioned by Blavatsky
in her book the Key to Theosophy p.2-3, that the Society is based on
the promotion of altruism so: "to reconcile all religions, sects and
nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities.".
>
> And therefore also all theosophical sects!
>
> - But these are just my views. And since most theosophical leaders
(administrative or not) seem to be able to walk on water and all kinds
of stuff's and since they do not seem to care to listen to what I have
to say, then I perhaps better keep my mouth shut.
>
>
> A sidenote:
> And I think that what today is known as the Counsil for a Parliament
of the Worlds Religions
> is seeking to follow that aim given by Blavatsky in the Key to
Theosophy, p. 2-3 and as I understand it also the TS founders. A main
and important difference however being that dogmatism is not countered
very well in this organisation.
>
> However The Counsil for a Parliament of the Worlds Religions have
created a declaration which can be said to be of great importance:
> Toward a Global Ethic: Initial Declaration
>
http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAG\
lobalEthic.pdf
>
>
> If you as ULT's want a secterian behaviour being promoted you can have
it, but I beg of you, please do not trample on H. P. Blavatsky's good
name and good reputation when you do it. And Olcott as well. Please?
>
> All the above are just my views.
> And I might be in error, since I do not claim myself to be infallible.
>
>
>
> M. Sufilight
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jdmsoares
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 7:50 PM
> Subject: theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An Article
>
>
>
>
> Dear Sufilight, friends,
>
> Sufilight thanks.
>
> Brother, ou website www.TheosophyOnline.com
> <http://www.theosophyonline.com/> is inspired by the
non-bureaucratic
> approach of the "ULT Declaration".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joaquim
>
> 0000000000000000000000000000
> The ULT Declaration
>
> The Founding Document ofthe United Lodge of Theosophists, ULT United
> Lodge of Theosophists 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 The
> U.L.T., founded in 1909, has Lodges
> throughout the world offering regularly scheduled
> lectures and study classes that are free and open
> to the public. In other areas there are smaller study
> classes that also meet regularly to study the original
> writings of Theosophy. A brief philosophic
> declaration is its sole guiding document.
> 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Declaration The policy of
> this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause of Theosophy,
without
> professing attachment to any Theosophical organization. It is loyal
to
> the great Founders of the Theosophical movement, but does not
concern
> itself with dissensions or differences of individual opinion. The
work
> it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing and
too
> lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side
issues.
> That work and that end is the dissemination of the fundamental
> principles of the Philosophy of Theosophy, and the exemplification
in
> practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the
SELF; a
> profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood. It holds that the
> unassailable basis for union among Theosophists, wherever and
however
> situated, is "similarity of aim, purpose and teaching," and
> therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws nor Officers, the sole
bond
> between its Associates being that basis. And it aims to disseminate
this
> idea among Theosophists in the furtherance of Unity. It regards as
> Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service of Humanity,
> without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or organization,
and
> It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its
> declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and
> otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others. "The true
> Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each and
> all." 0000000000000000 The following is the form signed by
> Associates of the United lodge of Theosophists: "Being in sympathy
> with the purposes of this Lodge, as set forth in its 'Declaration,'
I
> hereby record my desire to be enrolled as an Associate, it being
> understood that such association calls for no obligation on my part,
> other than that which I, myself, determine." 00000000000000000000
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" global-theosophy@
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Joaquim and friends
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > Although I appreciate your efforts and wellmeaning stance. I will
have
> to state that my aims - and I think with good reasons - are a bit
> different.
> >
> > I will instead have to ask you, at www.TheosophyOnline.com , what
> Constitution and Rules do you follow if any today?
> >
> > Show me your Constitution and Rules on your website, and then I
might
> listen.
> >
> >
> > Let me seek to explain my aim and views further in the below...
> >
> >
> > _______________
> > The Theosophical Society was originally formed to be non-secterian
in
> the year 1875. And it was still non-secterian in 1886 and in 1891.
Later
> the term NON-SECTERIAN was removed from its constitution and rules.
> >
> > This is one central issue to consider when reading the content of
the
> website you mention.
> > _______________
> >
> > THE KEY:
> > To me the central question for many days now is not the various
> opinions given by the various theosophical camps and offshoots, and
TS
> Adyar. Your articles at www.TheosophyOnline.com included.
> >
> >
> > The main and central questions are and must necessarily be:
> > - DOES A GIVEN THEOSOPHICAL GROUP FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
AND
> RULES given in 1875-1891?
> > - IF NOT, WHY NOT?
> >
> > - DOES A GIVEN THEOSOPHICAL GROUP FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
AND
> RULES given in 1875-1891 - with regard to ARTICLE XIII given in the
1891
> CONSTITUTION AND RULES?
> > - IF NOT, WHY NOT?
> >
> >
> > - DOES A GIVEN THEOSOPHICAL GROUP FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
AND
> RULES given in 1875-1891 - with regard to being NON-SECTERIAN?
> > - IF NOT, WHY NOT?
> >
> >
> > - IF A GIVEN THEOSOPHICAL GROUP HAS DELETED - or - REFORMULATED
> Article XIII given in the 1891 CONSTITUTION AND RULES, why have they
> done that? And when?
> >
> > - IF A GIVEN THEOSOPHICAL GROUP HAS DELETED - or - REFORMULATED
the
> use of the word or term NON-SECTERIAN in their present day
CONSTITUTION
> AND RULES, why have they done that? And when?
> >
> >
> > AND WHAT ROLE SHOULD WE - TODAY - GIVE "THE EXACT SCIENCE on
> PSYCHOLOGY" ALSO NAMED "THEOSOPHY" by the founders of the TS, WHEN
WE
> REALISE THAT THERE ALSO IS a more or less materialistic SCIENCE ON
> PSYCHOLOGICAL "MIND CONTROL" (the psychology about cults and sects
etc.)
> in EXISTENCE TODAY?
> >
> > - - -
> > I find it of less importance what opinion a given person have or
has
> about the Besant-Judge case or split and other matters.
> > I find the aims and the Constitutions of any given - (by
themselves
> named) - theosophical group to be the central issue. Building on a
rock
> seem to be important - and not secterian behaviour.
> >
> > When a given theosophical group can with honesty say, that they
still
> follow the Original Programe - the original Constitution and Rules
of
> the TS given in 1875-1891 by the founders - or - if they can
> scientifically show me and others why any given changes have been
> necessary - then, and first then I will find their aims to be
healthy.
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > Therefore I will instead have to ask you, at
www.TheosophyOnline.com ,
> what Constitution and Rules do you follow if any today?
> >
> > Show me your Constitution and Rules on your website, and then I
might
> listen.
> >
> >
> > All the above are of course as always just my views.
> > And I do not claim myself to be infallible.
> >
> >
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: jdmsoares
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:06 AM
> > Subject: theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An Article
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Sufilight, friends,
> >
> > Maybe you have not read carefully the article that MKR mentioned,
> > "The Future of Adyar Society
> >
>
<http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/10/future-of-adyar-society_18.h\
\
> \
> > tml> ".
> >
> > Let me leave here the invitation to those who feel interested to
> visit
> > our websites and read our texts.
> >
> > On the websites www.TheosophyOnline.com
> > <http://www.theosophyonline.com/> and www.Esoteric-Philosophy.com
> > <http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/> you will find two specific
> > sections dealing in depth with the really important issues
affecting
> the
> > Adyar Society, and the esoteric movement as a whole: "Truth and
> > Falsehood in the Theosophical Literature" and "Theosophical
> > Movement -- Its Past and Its Future".
> >
> > You will find there, very clearly, that to really revive Adyar TS
is
> > necessary to abandon the pseudo-theosophy of Annie Besant and
> > Leadbeater, is necessary to rescue the original theosophy of HPB;
is
> > necessary to abandon the domain maintained by dogmatisms
> > bureaucratic-ritualistic.
> >
> > Above all, is necessary to recognize past mistakes and fantasies
so
> to
> > continue to persist in these same mistakes over and over again.
They
> are
> > not personal mistakes, but pedagogical ones. They resulted,
> basically,
> > from the withdrawal of the genuine esoteric philosophy and from
the
> well
> > intentioned adoption of a pseudo-theosophy placed at the service
of
> > rituals, hierarchies of power, etc.
> >
> > Best regards, Joaquim
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight"
global-theosophy@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Joaquim
> > >
> > > My views are:
> > >
> > > Now I ask a few questions in the below to Joaquim.
> > > other readers are heartily welcome to give some answers, of
their
> > heart of compassion are eager enough for it. Especially those who
> claim
> > that they value the promotion of altruism in the TS very very
much.
> TS
> > leaders included!
> > >
> > >
> > > Joaquim, you wrote:
> > > "I think the differences between Sufilight positions and those
we
> > defend
> > > in our websites are, from our point of view, secondary and of no
> great
> > > importance."
> > >
> > > M. Sufilight says:
> > > Well, that might be true.
> > > But I wonder whether it is unimportant, if the present day TS
> operates
> > a secterian body or not, when its original aim in 1875 until 1891
> was
> > most clearly to operate in a non-secterian manner?
> > >
> > > And I also wonder whether it is unimportant, if the present day
TS
> > operates with the same view as Annie Besant when she as a leader
of
> the
> > TS and its Esoteric Section said the following in her very
political
> > book in the below excerpt.
> > >
> > > In the below Annie Besant made both H. P. Blavatsky and H. S.
> Olcott
> > guilty of political pormotions - even on behalf - of the
> Theosophical
> > Society. To this I must clealry protest, when one call it
> unimportant or
> > of no freat importance, even if TS Adyar do it....
> > >
> > > The Future of Indian Politics, 1922 (Printed at supposedly
> > non-political Theosophical Publishing House)
> > > "CHAPTER I
> > > STEP BY STEP
> > >
> > > We begin with the words with which we
> > > finished our " Bird's-Eye View " : " ultimate
> > > freedom under her rule was inevitable " ; and
> > > we must first note the great institution known
> > > as the Indian National Congress, which laid,
> > > well and truly, the foundations of Indian Free-
> > > dom from December, 1885, to August, 1918,
> > > both in Bombay.
> > >
> > > Some English critics, in the early days of
> > > the War, angrily declared that India had taken
> > > advantage of the War to press a new claim for
> > > Dominion status. That was not so. The new
> > > departure in 1913 resembled in one marked
> > > way the new departure when the National
> > >
> > >
> > > 26 THE FUTURE OF INDIAN POLITICS
> > >
> > > Congress was planned in 1884. The seed of
> > > both was planted by the Theosophical Society.
> > > It was at the Theosophical Convention of that
> > > year that a small group of earnest Theo-
> > > sophists - deeply concerned for the political
> > > future of their country and aroused to a sense
> > > of her past powers and her then present
> > > impotence by the awakening crusades of
> > > H. P. Blavatsky and Henry Steele Olcott,
> > > stirring the educated to self-respect and res-
> > > pect for their Nation - meeting in Adyar,
> > > decided to make an effort for political
> > > redemption; feeble as they seemed, they
> > > felt strong in their belief that India's
> > > ancient Rshis still watched over Their ancient
> > > and ever well-loved land, and would aid their
> > > efforts to bring about her political resurrection ;
> > > so they gathered a small meeting in Madras
> > > - there were only seventeen of them - and it
> > > was there decided to begin " a National move-
> > > ment for the saving of the Motherland "(How
> > >
> > > STEP BY STEP 27
> > >
> > > India Wrought for Freedom, p. 2). A list of the
> > > seventeen is there given, quoted from the
> > > Indian Mirror, and they were mostly delegates
> > > to the Theosophical Convention from Calcutta,
> > > Bombay, Poena, Benares, Allahabad, Bengal,^
> > > Oudh and the Northwest Province (now the
> > > United Provinces), and Madras. One of them,
> > > Norendranath Sen, Editor of the (Calcutta)
> > > Indian Mirror, says of them in his paper :
> > > " The delegates who attended the [Theo-
> > > sophical] Convention were most of them men
> > > who, socially and intellectually, are the leaders
> > > of the Society in which they move in different
> > > parts of the country." They resolved that on
> > > their return home, each would form a
> > > Committee in his own town or Province, and
> > > consult how to make their dream a reality. " In
> > > March, 1885, it was decided to hold a meeting
> > > of representatives from all parts of India at
> > > the then coming Christmas " (Proceedings of
> > > the First Indian National Congress) They
> > >
> > >
> > > 28 THE FUTURE OF INDIAN POLITICS
> > >
> > > estimated that seventy delegates would be pre-
> > > sent, and seventy-two attended, strengthened
> > > by thirty friends. From that first meeting in
> > > 1885 to that of Bombay in 1918 - with one
> > > break-down at Surat in 1907 - the Congress
> > > was truly National, and guided Indian Politics.
> > > During all these years the National Congress
> > > had awakened large numbers of the English-
> > > educated classes to political self-consciousness,
> > > and had trained them in political knowledge.
> > > English names, Hume, Wedderburn, Cotton,
> > > and others are found co-operating with the
> > > Indian patriots. It met yearly and demanded
> > > definite improvements in the system of
> > > Government, definite changes in legislation,
> > > definite reforms of abuses, definite limitations
> > > of autocracy and enlargements of liberty."
> > >
> >
>
http://www.archive.org/stream/futureofindianpo00besarich#page/n3/mode/2u\
\
> \
> > p
> > >
> > > I repeat Annie Besant claim:
> > > "The seed of
> > > both was planted by the Theosophical Society."...ie. the
political
> aim
> > for freedom of India, (to Besant this was freedom under the
English
> > Crown, the King)...etc. etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the past, which at present still looms over the
> Theosophical
> > Society, who in truth have not washed away this stain from its
main
> > spiritual aim of altruism.
> > >
> > > Those who find that turning the TS into a pseudo-arm and
promoter
> of
> > politics a good idea, they support Annie Besant. Those who do not,
> aught
> > to change the Constitution and Rules of the present day TS, so
they
> > clearly rejects this stance - something the today very much
> distorted
> > 1891 TS Constitutions and Rules in fact do.
> > >
> > > But, please tell me why I am in error, when I - in the name of
> > ALTRUSIM --- find the lack of emphasis on these to issues -
> > non-political interference and non-secterian bahaviour to be
lacking
> in
> > TS Adyar and its present day Constitutions. Will you please do
that?
> > >
> > > All the above are as usual just my views.
> > > And I might be in error.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > M. Sufilight
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: jdmsoares
> > > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:35 AM
> > > Subject: theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An Article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Sufilight, Konstantin, friends,
> > >
> > > I think the differences between Sufilight positions and those we
> > defend
> > > in our websites are, from our point of view, secondary and of no
> > great
> > > importance.
> > >
> > > Konstantin is deeply concerned about those who left the Adyar
TS,
> > and
> > > believes that these become the "most bitter enemies".
> > >
> > > My dear brothers, I myself was for some years a member of Adyar
> > Society
> > > and like Sufilight and many others I also not hope to be
> considered
> > an
> > > enemy.
> > >
> > > Theosophy is not confined to the Adyar TS.
> > >
> > > It is good to remember that HPB herself wrote:
> > >
> > > "It is pure nonsense to say ´H.P. Blavatsky . . . is loyal to
> the
> > > Theosophical Society and to Adyar` (!?) H.P. Blavatsky is loyal
to
> > death
> > > to the Theosophical Cause, and those great Teachers whose
> philosophy
> > can
> > > alone bind the whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together
> with
> > > Col. Olcott, she is the chief Founder and Builder of the Society
> > which
> > > was and is meant to represent the Cause. . . Therefore the
degree
> of
> > her
> > > sympathies with the "Theosophical Society and Adyar" depends
> > > upon the degree of the loyalty of that Society to the Cause. Let
> it
> > > break away from the original lines and show disloyalty in its
> policy
> > to
> > > the Cause and the original programme of the Society, and H.P.
> > Blavatsky
> > > calling the Theosophical Society disloyal will shake it off like
> > dust
> > > from her feet."
> > >
> > > I took this excerpt - of the well know text of HPB - from a most
> > > interesting article entitled "A Key to the Future of Adyar
> > >
> >
>
<http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/10/1922-statement-to-all-theoso\
\
> \
> > \
> > > phists-and.html> ", which I think it is worth reading carefully.
> > >
> > > The theosophical movement itself as a whole needs a revived
Adyar
> > TS.
> > >
> > > Best regards, Joaquim
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight"
> global-theosophy@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Konstantin and friends
> > > >
> > > > My views are:
> > > >
> > > > Your post got me to think about my own role in this affair:
> > > > Well, then I do certainly not hope that I am considered an
enemy
> > and
> > > Jesuit, at least not more than Leadbeater was when he was
> reinstated
> > in
> > > 1908 - well if you understand me in a positive manner.
> > > >
> > > > Well, either one is in sympathy with the aims of the Society
or
> > one is
> > > not.
> > > > I am very much in sympathy with the Original Constitution and
> > Rules as
> > > they were given in 1891, but not the present day ones. That is
the
> > main
> > > difference i experience.
> > > >
> > > > What I through the years has experienced as highly problematic
> is
> > that
> > > it is virtually impossible to exchange views with leading TS
> members
> > > about central issues like why deviation from the Original
> > Constitution
> > > of the Theosophical Society has been necessary - and why
exchanges
> > on
> > > this is kept from the TS magazines, while it as a fact must be
of
> > the
> > > greatest importance to consider in a Society where the primary
aim
> > is
> > > something as important as ALTRUISM! And when we on top of that
> talk
> > > about the crisis that happened in the later years and the
lacking
> of
> > > interest or rather understanding of the TS and its aims among
> people
> > in
> > > all countries but India perhaps, - so we are told --- I find the
> > > laziness og laissez-faire attutude publicly speaking to be
lacking
> > > compassion!
> > > > Yet, there is a TS blog where some articles have been posted,
> and
> > we
> > > have to be thankful for this.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe as HPB said in the link on SPIRITUAL PROGRESS I recently
> > posted,
> > > --- we all would do well in much more scientific research in the
> > field
> > > of Mesmerism (known today by many as Heartflow and Healing, or
> > > Therapeutic Touch etc.)?
> > > >
> > > > There is, as I see it, a clear and pressing need for an
> > explanation of
> > > the aims of the Society - and a clear explanation of why its
> > > Constitution and Rules are like they are today - and - that
> compared
> > > with the original one in 1875 and later versions, like the 1891
> one.
> > It
> > > is important, if one really are taking this Society thing
> seriously.
> > If
> > > it is not, then the present day attitude are understood much
> better.
> > But
> > > calling it altruism I will not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TS has, as I see it, today not clearly defined its role
towards
> > New
> > > Age groups - and the many later theosophical ofshoots - and that
> is
> > a
> > > great failure. The same with TS relation to whether it is
> secterian
> > or
> > > non-secterian. (The latter term, a term which has been thrown
away
> > from
> > > the 1875 and 1891 Constitutions through the years). In the old
> days,
> > > something like that would not have happened - because back then
> > altruism
> > > and building the Society on a rock was considered to be
important
> -
> > and
> > > views based on facts and scientific research as well.
> > > > And honesty was important as well - and an error commited, was
> > > admitted when proven.
> > > > And I find that this last sentence, perhaps is where the shoe
> > pinches
> > > mon Shaib (as Sinnett was told by Morya in the below).
> > > >
> > > > J. Krishnamurti's idea of abolishing all organisations is not
> > really
> > > what is helpful to the promotion of altruism, if you by this
> > consider
> > > dissolving the TS. And if it is a dissolving of the TS the
present
> > day
> > > leadership aims at they seem very slow at promoting it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mahatma Letter no. 47 by Morya to Sinnett:
> > > > "Your last letter to me is less a "petition" than a protest,
my
> > > respected Sahib. It's voice is that of the war sankh of my
Rajput
> > > ancestors, rather than the cooing of a friend. And I like it all
> the
> > > more I promise you. It has the right ring of honest frankness.
So
> > let us
> > > talk -- for sharp as your voice may be, your heart is warm and
you
> > end
> > > by saying "Whether you decree that what seems to me right be
done
> or
> > > not" you are ever ours faithfully etc. Europe is a large place
but
> > the
> > > world is bigger yet. The sun of Theosophy must shine for all,
not
> > for a
> > > part. There is more of this movement than you have yet had an
> > inkling
> > > of, and the work of the T.S. is linked in with similar work that
> is
> > > secretly going on in all parts of the world. Even in the T.S.
> there
> > is a
> > > division, managed by a Greek Brother about which not a person in
> the
> > > Society has a suspicion excepting the old woman and Olcott"
> > > > .......
> > > > "You know K.H. and me -- buss! know you anything of the whole
> > > Brotherhood and its ramifications? The Old Woman is accused of
> > > untruthfulness, inaccuracy in her statements. "Ask no questions
> and
> > you
> > > will receive no lies." She is forbidden to say what she knows.
You
> > may
> > > cut her to pieces and she will not tell. Nay -- she is ordered
in
> > cases
> > > of need to mislead people; and, were she more of a natural born
> liar
> > --
> > > she might be happier and won her day long since by this time.
But
> > that's
> > > just where the shoe pinches, Sahib. She is too truthful, too
> > outspoken,
> > > too incapable of dissimulation: and now she is being daily
> crucified
> > for
> > > it. Try not to be hasty, respected Sir. The world was not made
in
> a
> > day;
> > > nor has the tail of the yak developed in one year. Let evolution
> > take
> > > its course naturally -- lest we make it deviate and produce
> monsters
> > by
> > > presuming to guide it."
> > > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-47.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, you may crucify me for saying what I am saying, but I am
> > saying
> > > it for the sake of a Society I am not even a member of these
days.
> > > >
> > > > All the above are as usual just my views.
> > > > And I might be in error.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > M. Sufilight
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Konstantin Zaitzev
> > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:02 AM
> > > > Subject: theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An
Article
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Some months ago, an article on the topic of the Future of
> Adyar
> > > > > Society was published in a theosophical forum.
> > > >
> > > > The author is very prejudiced. He persistently calls
> theosophical
> > > society "Adyar society", ignoring the fact that other societies
> > calling
> > > themselves theosophical are decaying in much greater degree and
> > hadn't
> > > much prominence even in their best times.
> > > > Information on his site is filtered and censored. Several
months
> > ago
> > > he proposed me to make an interview, ensuring me in his
> > "professional
> > > journalism", "professional ethics" and other bla-bla-bla like
> that.
> > > > It took much time to write detailed answers to all his
> questions,
> > > but as some my answers proved to be not like he expected, he
> > declined to
> > > publish the interview.
> > > > I agree that for the last 30 years the Theosophical Society is
> > > experiencing serious problems (probably more serious than the
> author
> > > points out but of quite different nature), but it's not the best
> way
> > to
> > > solve them to resort to the help of the enemies of the Society.
> For
> > many
> > > years he was a member and later left it, and, as HPB pointed
out,
> > such
> > > people form the most bitter enemies. The other materials of the
> site
> > > illustarate that well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
